| ▲ | SunshineTheCat 4 hours ago |
| I know that I'm in a bit of a bubble with this one, but I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave. I get the dependency on Gmail other Google-specific tools, but the built-in ad blocking and Google-free aspects of it made me switch instantly and haven't look back after years. |
|
| ▲ | plopz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Brave started off incredibly sketchy and with terrible reputation, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat. |
| |
| ▲ | GeekyBear an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Brave started off incredibly sketchy Chrome has stayed incredibly sketchy from the beginning, when Google gained marketshare by sneaking Chrome into the installer for other products that people intentionally downloaded. Then Chrome did things like "accidentally" uploading your entire browsing history to Google servers when you signed into Gmail. Now they have declared war on ad blockers, despite the government warning that ad networks are too big a malware vector to ignore. | | |
| ▲ | fragmede an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's a different kind of sketchy than whatever crypto ad replacement stuff that Brave was accused of doing. | | |
| ▲ | GeekyBear a minute ago | parent [-] | | The only difference is that Google is still doing sketchy things today, two decades later. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rideontime 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same here. I don't care how they responded to the backlash, the fact that it happened in the first place was enough for me. | |
| ▲ | nelsonic an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Brave is my default browser for non-sensitive tasks; e.g. most web browsing, GitHub, news, etc.
The built-in ad-blocker & tracker blocker alone is worth it.
Use chrome for testing.
Stock Firefox for anything sensitive. | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | ifh-hn 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm similar but instead of brave, which I don't trust, prefer Firefox. |
| |
| ▲ | tardedmeme 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't trust Firefox either, so I use Zen, which is based on Firefox and also changes the UI. | | |
| ▲ | ifh-hn 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Zen lost my trust since: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43443494 | | |
| ▲ | janalsncm an hour ago | parent [-] | | In my mind, no browser is perfect. However, as far as I can tell that’s not nearly as sketchy as the title implies. It’s for local debugging. Zen has other issues for me on Ubuntu (eating a ton of resources) which is why I usually use FF. But I put Zen in a different category from Brave and definitely better than Chrome. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | skocznymroczny 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I switched to Firefox when Chrome started messing with the ad blockers. Haven't really had any issues. I prefer developer tools on Chrome but I rarely need to use them anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | xacky 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The trouble is that Mozilla has admitted they can't survive without Google's revenue. You are basically using Google by proxy unless you use a truly independent browser engine of they get blocked by Cloudflare for not having enough fingerprinting tech. | | |
| ▲ | Vinnl an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Mozilla is paid when people search on Google through Firefox. If you're not searching with Google, you're not using Google by proxy. (Work at Mozilla, but not related to this - this is just public info.) | |
| ▲ | hparadiz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | (Ungoogled) Chromium and Firefox are both projects that are open source and readily available. The code is sitting there ready for you to compile. More users = more donations. You can be the change you wanna see. | |
| ▲ | janalsncm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What browser can genuinely claim independence from Google? Chromium browsers are all arguably in the same camp. If FF is implicated, then so are forks like Zen. Safari is probably the only one? | | | |
| ▲ | close04 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You are basically using Google by proxy unless you use a truly independent browser engine This conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Google has to pay because if Mozilla dies, so does the claim of any real competition on the browser engine market. So everyone agrees Firefox's engine is truly independent. Google pays so Firefox users don't use anything that has to do with Google. If you think about it, the only real way to not hurt Google is for Firefox to stop existing. Chrome would end up being spun off from Google. | | |
| ▲ | generic92034 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Chrome would end up being spun off from Google. You mean, with reasonable administrations, caring for antitrust laws. |
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't agree that you are using Google by proxy when Firefox has more technical independence from Google than Chrome and can be quickly decoupled from the few Google defaults it has, search and safe browsing. |
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | blks an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Brave’s owner is a very sketchy dude. With all the news that were happening around brave, all the shitcoin stuff, I wouldn’t be surprised if the browser is mining crypto. The single affiliated link scandal is enough to not touch that project with a ten foot pole. |
|
| ▲ | amatecha 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm just surprised people use Chrome at all. Google has proven over and over they can't be trusted and will exploit you every chance they get. |
| |
| ▲ | e40 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because some things only work in Chrome. It's a fact. It's terrible. We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right. I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work. | | |
| ▲ | tcp_handshaker 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> Because some things only work in Chrome. What things? Looks like an urban myth. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm aware of a few things, myself: 1) Google properties 1a) Chromecast 2) a few web-based games that were really pushing the envelope on web APIs and didn't bother testing on Firefox 3) WebUSB, commonly used for some things like keyboard customization apps | | |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Which Google properties are Chrome only? I'm not doubting you but the major ones (search, mail, maps, ads) are extremely cross-platform. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In the past there were features that didn't work at all; I used to hit those regularly. Device setup flows, AV features, etc. These days, it's never "this doesn't work on other browsers". It's always "this is worse on other browsers", whether because they don't test it or because they don't care. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cwillu 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The driver and store signup/portal for doordash returns a 403 forbidden on firefox. | |
| ▲ | nmeagent an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've run into a few restaurant sites whose ordering pages just do not work properly (or at all) in Firefox. Also webgl2 performance is unfortunately still much better in Chrome vs Firefox; as an example, FoundryVTT (virtual tabletop software) works fine in Firefox but is a stuttery mess IME (though it has improved slightly in the last few years). | | |
| ▲ | mvdtnz an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'd bet my bottom dollar those websites still work in Edge, Chromium and Brave. The alternative to Chrome is not Firefox, it's just Not Chrome. |
| |
| ▲ | hparadiz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of IT now curates the extensions for the browsers and doesn't allow extensions not on the whitelist and then they basically just only do that work on Chrome and disable Firefox. It's kinda self defeating in the long run imo but that's the problem in the industry. | |
| ▲ | input_sh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Chrome likes to make up new "standards" and then some websites adopt them immediately. That said, I can only remember two instances of that slightly inconveniencing me in the past, and both times I was inconvenienced by a Google-run website: once upon a time Google Earth refused to work, and once upon a time I couldn't tweak my Google Meet background. Both are no longer the case. | | |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Citation needed. I've seen the opposite--unless there's a very specific niche that can't be otherwise solved, there's huge internal resistance to going it alone. The biggest counterexample I can think of: WebUSB was critical to Chromebooks supporting external devices, but I can see why Safari might not want it. It has Firefox support at last, though. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 95% of people who use Chrome have no clue what browser they are using. They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive, because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were). When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interaction. Or they one click downloaded it from Google.com because of a giant banner saying "You gotta download chrome" It's insane to me how rarely people on HN seem to actually know the history of this. Everyone who worked in tech support in the 2010s experienced this. It was an identical strategy that most spyware and adware used at the time. | | |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why would people still be using a computer from 2010? That might have made sense in 2015, but beggars belief in 2026. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | vehemenz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ok, why Brave though? There's Safari, Chromium, LibreWolf, Ladybird, and plenty of others. |
| |
| ▲ | bloqs 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1. Because it's most popular. Guaranteed support and "monkey see monkey do". 2. The adblocking is preconfigured, and non technical users trying to find the right extensions has a very bad history of unintentional malware. Ad block? Adblock plus? Ublock? Ublock origin? This is a great example of what floors a lot of technical folk who would be "why not just install ublock origin" and fail to understand the "why should I when I can just get Brave one and it works" 3. Most people don't use macs | | |
| ▲ | Gander5739 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Librewolf meets 2 and 3 (it comes with ublock origin preinstalled), but admittedly fails 1 quite badly. |
| |
| ▲ | fg137 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not everyone is on Mac. In fact, most people use Windows. So Safari and Ladybird are out of the question, that's two gone. | |
| ▲ | nazgulsenpai 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They mentioned the built-in adblock | |
| ▲ | rolymath 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Brave is has pre-configured as block that works on everything, also a polished sync experience. | | |
| ▲ | g8oz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Vivaldi's sync experience is nice as well. Top notch customization too. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jeffgreco 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I was very vehement about needing to stay in Chromium — until I tried Zen browser and it turns out I didn’t! (Unless I wanted to watch Prime Video) |
|
| ▲ | blks an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I was using Firefox, Vivaldi, Zen, and finally got fed up with various issues that Zen was having, so I switched to Waterfox. I am very happy and the browser is very fast; difference is immense. |
| |
|
| ▲ | touristtam 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| After years of using alternative to chrome (Firefox, Chromium, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Edge, etc ...) I have stopped fighting the choice of IT for installing and setting Chrome as the default browser on a Mac. I still use Firefox when I can and religiously reroute URLs to it where possible, but this is beating me down and I would rather spend time playing with LLMs rather than continue this struggle. |
|
| ▲ | StilesCrisis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you're anti-Google, use Firefox. It's hypocritical to use the browser they're paying to build, then complain about how they generate revenue to fund it. |
|
| ▲ | maxloh 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I find Brave's UI uglier than Chrome's. Unfortunately, there is no way to switch back to the stock Chromium look. |
|
| ▲ | frizlab 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I use Safari personally. It’s good. |
|
| ▲ | afavour 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You’re definitely in a bubble. Google advertises Chrome on TV. Most users haven’t even heard of Brave. |
|
| ▲ | coldpie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I want to use a browser engine that is not developed/owned by Google, so I use Firefox. I also don't want to support Brave's CEO's politics, so I would not use Brave regardless. |
|
| ▲ | Brian_K_White 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "I am surprised there is still anyone using Chrome instead of Brave." Bubble indeed.
No one should use Brave. |
|
| ▲ | Markoff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| why would you use brave with annoying crypto and no customization over superior Vivaldi? |
| |
| ▲ | dave78 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | To each their own, but I've been using Brave for a long time (5+ years I think?). It was one or 2 clicks to turn off the crypto stuff when I first installed it. It was straightforward and no dark patterns were employed. It has never come back, unlike what Google and Firefox tend to do with their annoying features. It even syncs my preferences to any new browser I add so I only had to do it on one computer once and never worry about it again. The web's dependency on Chromium engines is deeply concerning, I agree. I used Firefox for a long time. But at this point, IMO Brave is the most pragmatic choice if you want a browser that's not Google but "just works" with the modern web. | |
| ▲ | tcp_handshaker 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why did I had to come so much down this thread, before seeing a mention of my favorite browser? |
|
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well, why would I want to use Brave? Brave is the Google empire aka chromium. I use thorium, which also belongs to the empire, so it is not really any different to Brave - but I can use ublock origin still, so that's better. I think we are all in the Google empire here. Praising Brave as alternative, simply does not make a whole lot of sense really. Firefox is a bit outside of it but it basically got rid of most of its users. When I use firefox, I can not play audio on youtube videos. It works fine with thorium. I tried to convince the firefox developer who said everyone on Linux must use pulseaudio (I don't) but there is no reasoning with Mozilla hackers here. He thinks he knows better than everyone else does. (I could recompile firefox from source, but Mozilla uses mozconfig still: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... - they are too incompetent to transition into meson or cmake. A failing project, no wonder it lost most of its users. Titanic got nothing on the Firefox team.) |
|
| ▲ | RobRivera 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have never heard of Brave, please tell me more Edit: downvoting a request for insight on something? Mediocre |
|
| ▲ | bix6 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| +1 for Brave. Been on it for years and it’s fantastic. Strongest security settings without issue. O no they gave you BAT for visiting websites. Ahhh crypto everyone run! |
| |
| ▲ | bloqs 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not familiar with this? | | |
| ▲ | bix6 an hour ago | parent [-] | | With the BAT aspect? You get tokens for seeing ads. It never really took off but kudos for trying. Also hilarious that I got downvoted on my main comment but nobody was willing to show themselves. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | newsoftheday 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| My theory is that, since I'm going to do things like banking in my browser, I want one that has a lot of skin in the game. Chrome being backed by Google has trillions of dollars on the line should they ever do anything truly evil. Though this sneaky 4GB download comes close. |
| |
| ▲ | bix6 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google is not liable for your banking. | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's no skin in the game if they do not think they'll be meaningfully punished by government or consumers for their wrongdoings. | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | And they have trillions riding on milking you for all your data and ad impressions. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which they seem to think they'll get, regardless of the quality of their web browser. Most people are entrapped by Android anywho. |
|
| |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Edge and Chrome could both be eliminated tomorrow and those trillions would be safe. You’re the product, not the browser. |
|